permit consulting firm. we are brought on project to investigate anomalies and permit histories. this building is one of them. but briefly, just to address her comment, this has been properly demonstrated as a live work unit. if professional author, employed as such, she does her business out of here. we're here to talk about the dwelling in a merger. hopefully you were given copies of this and if not, i am happy to provide copies. there was never a consistent unit accounts. there is not a significant final completion. a lot of stuff was lost in the shuffle and the '90s. we have been involved to remedy this as the project sponsor mentioned, they have building permits for the remodel. i have personally met with the

building and fire department, let them know the plan of action. the permits currently doesn't show any construction work and verifies the and it counted 24. the building department agreed to sign off on the applicable permits. this is a means to the end of finishing up with the construction project. i am happy to answer other questions. president olague: is there additional public comment? please come to the microphone. you have already spoken. you can't speak a second time. is there anyone else that would like to speak? that is why i thought you might be motioning to me. it wasn't for you, but for someone else.

>> i am co owner of this unit with my husband. i am a former professor at the city college of san francisco, a professional writer, and i also do public-relations writing on a pro bono basis. nothing has been filed because we have not lived there long enough. we were out of the unit for eight months while it was being renovated on legal permits given to us by the city of santa it is. as far as i know, if it is a question, we are in compliance with the live work authorization and the necessity. i would also add that even though it is a live work unit, at no time from the beginning were these units of affordable housing by any san francisco standard.

in 15 years later, there are far from being affordable and no unit has been removed from the market because this was never used except as a single unit by the original owner that purchased it from the developers. thank you. president olague: is there additional public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i asked for this project to be taken up for the very reason that the public has discussed. the applicant's position that is obviously the very unusable story of data and procedures which i thought were alfaro and clearer, particularly san francisco has a large amount of former apartment condominium dwellers listening to this particular case could find

themselves in very similar situations unless it is clearly verify that that in a conversion from single ownership, the recording of multiple ownerships are done properly. should somebody buys something, unbeknownst to the real history where the real recording, they might find themselves in violation at the second or third resale because the conversion was not properly recorded. there are still to tax bills coming to this owner, which means in the tax assessor's records, this project has not been merged from two units into one. there is a huge potential for errors and omissions. i am only speaking out of concern rather than taking a position on the project.

your respective of the issues that miss hester is raising . it needs to be vetted by this commission. that is not the reason why i am asking to take this project. i take this city needs to come up very quickly with providing certainty and credibility to owners in converted residential buildings that only had single ownership for those who thought they went to an early conversion and might find themselves with an unclear history of what the conversion entailed. i live in such a building, it was a normal rental building and is still in normal apartment building except it is owner occupied by those people when we all scraped hour and come

together and afford a unit like that. at that time, we created a stock of middle income people scraping by to affordability. i want to be sure that what they did is not threatened by some men consistent record. that is the purpose of why ask this to be taken out. commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner moore. the unit merger that has been presented as the fact that it has been used as a single unit from the very beginning, and probably the issue that was brought up was more about the entire handling of live work units and whether or not their business is taking place in those that legitimize their status. it is a much broader issue, and

probably many of these have businesses going on. but what is before us is whether or not it is appropriate to legalize this use that has been the use of the situation since 1996. and as was pointing out, we are not costing affordable housing in making these -- legalizing the units into one legal unit. much of the permit has already gone forward from the city on this so it would seem to me that this is something that we should do. commissioner borden: i agree with commissioner moore and commissioner antonini. i have a question for staff about the annual filing that happens with live work. i dunno if the zoning administrator can answer that, but who lives of those records? >> we will have to take

additional research and get back to you on that. >> there is an issue not just in these sort of buildings, but not filing a final occupancy. what are the requirements around that? people can move in, but you never have to file a certificate? >> deregulation of the building department, they allow temporary certificates of occupancy which you typically see in larger construction. and they're moving people to lower floors, you have a temporary. commissioner borden: there is no deadline? >> i think i have requirements, but it is the building code. commissioner borden: i think it would be useful to have a joint hearing with of the department of building inspection because there is an issue around fees and we have changed the process to deal with that issue. it is a big problem that they

don't fly all for occupancy. i think the other issue that we generally talked about is what real estate agents represent and we see it all the time. it is sometimes contrary to what the code actually says. i don't know how we can come down on those agents. denny's to be a conversation, maybe have someone from the association of realtors here to talk about this issue because this is not the first kind of case we have had like this. they are innocent i think in this situation. >> v three r report, it is something that the building department maintains. that typically says, that is what we rely on for the number of units in a building.

it is something that has to be generated around the time of the transfer. maybe that is why the issue has come up as much. since is live work, it is not subject to the requirements. commissioner borden: i think it is a conversation we need have because we can't be in the situation where people are violating the code and we turn our heads. i don't hold this project sponsor liable for it, you are in a situation that is been used as one for a very long time. but we have an alarming situation that we don't even know the process by which they file every year which is super problematic. not only in these buildings but other buildings, it is interesting that we have this relationship with the department of building inspection that we

enforce the code and they have another process. that doesn't seem to be a congruency. president olague: i think that sometime in december after mr. sanchez has had more time to gather information, we can have a conversation among ourselves. i don't think it is realistic at this stage to be able to schedule because of all the logistics involved. before the year is out, at least with the department of building inspection. it doesn't mean we can't have a representative, but i think -- is december realistic? >> i think we can have information ready for the commission. commissioner moore: i would like to ask the city attorney if she has any insights or any comment.

is there any guidance or clarity that you might be able to provide us on this matter? >> commissioners, there are sort of the number of pieces of information that mr. sanchez has indicated that we can help provide that information. it seems like some of this information gives dropped when units are sold, so there may be some notice that the city wants to provide a so that potential buyers or sellers are aware of the dwelling in a merger and requirement on the part of the city. we must certainly work with the department with all these questions that the commissioners have asked. commissioner antonini: i think we also have to look at the broader issue that was raised, that is generally about live work units that are occupied by thousands of people, many of

whom use them for part-time businesses, the ones to use them for full-time businesses would obviously file their schedule. the people are using them for legitimate second uses. this is some guidance as to what would be compliant if the city has a policy that we would like to know about and make sure people are aware. they have a legitimate business that they are running out of their, with whom do we have to file? is the federal return enough? that would be good to know. move to approve. >> second. >> of the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review. on that motion? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye.

commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. president olague: aye. >> it passes unanimously. we are now at commissioners questions and matters. commissioner antonini: thank-you to the comments on housing issues. the u.s. probably seen a lot in the press about repossessions and there was a big article in the chronicle. i think the city is doing a very good job regarding some of the protests that are taking place as far as the occupy now and protecting free speech rights by also protecting the rights of the vast majority of the public that also has the right to use public space that other people are occupying. i hope that the same things are being applied, that you don't

block passage ways, that you have permits, that there are no encampment's or cooking. this is what is being done, just as if you're using a baseball field for part of the day, when your usage is over, you have to vacate so someone else can use it. on the larger issue of some of the causes that i have not heard much discussion about remedies from any of the people that are protesting at. i think a lot of the factors that exist in this situation are similar to what happened in the late twenties. a lot of that, in both instances, gambling on appreciation. in the late 20's, people were buying stocks with the idea that the increase in stock prices would allow them to make a lot of money. when stock prices fell, they lost much of their in come because they have gambled on

stock appreciation and the situation that occurred most recently was doing the same thing with real estate. i think we need some positive steps in this direction, particularly with owner occupied home mortgages. we need a more conservative appraisals. i like to see an end of the loan payments and in variable mortgages. and probably mandatory mortgage insurance. this would prevent the kind of thing that has happened in the past from happening again. there are a lot of people that should take the blame and obviously, it has been talk about a lot. while banks and wall street had a lot to do with that, the folks that borrowed either ill-advised or made bad choices and even the government that found a lot of these bad loans through government agencies with fannie mae and freddie mac, other

agencies, it was partly because of this. hopefully out of this entire thing well, with some solutions on a federal basis that we can apply to this unfortunate situation and not have that happen again. commissioner miguel: during the past week, i have had conversations regarding america's cup. last night, there was an excellent reception for the tenth anniversary of city cars share, well attended. the main speaker was nancy pelosi, from the beginning, a very heavy supporter and a proponent of this concept particularly here in san francisco. there were three meetings at which members of the planning staff really showed.

on the implementation of the eastern neighborhoods, they did a wonderful presentation on that. excellent for the department. there was the monthly meeting of the market street civic design group and i have to complement david that has been doing excellent work on this somewhat large committee of people who are sometimes very independent and no way that they worked professionally, but have been getting along beautifully in the meeting is and really producing a lot of good work up till now. and there was a public meeting

of the arts funding legislation that supervisor chiu has put forth a public meeting. it was unfortunate that the arts community was very well represented. the development community that also was affected by this was totally absent. i am not sure, and i've talked with those from the art commission as well, and additional work will be done to get the developing community at least a nodding that there is something possibly happening in this. in particular, an old friend of mine that was president of the black rock foundation was there

and did an excellent job of explaining what funding in the arts community for the arts community can do for the civic relman. he really did an excellent job of that. an interesting week. >> i wanted to thank my colleagues for indulging me earlier. as many of you might know, this is the great california shakeout where we raise awareness about earthquake preparedness and at around 10:20 a.m., people told to drop cover and hold on because that is what you need to do in an earthquake. underneath the surface like this desk or a door ray would be a great way to keep yourself safe. we can't _ enough be prepared as -- the importance of the earthquake preparedness. and then 22 years ago monday was another earthquake.

we all need to make a plan, be prepared. the second thing is i went along sixth street on friday night, it was just an incredible opportunity to see what was going on along sixth street. all the different businesses, you had a band playing in the laundromat. you had people drawing on the walls, it was an amazing display of art. it was pretty spectacular. it was a longtime studio in the filipino community, and with the help of the redevelopment agency after being pushed out, they were able to be in a position to have a brand new studio come on line and it was an amazing evening to see what is starting to happen along sixth street. if you haven't been on sixth

street, patronize the businesses. the vacancy rate is under 10%. that is because there was a lot of hard work and the solutions to help fill those facades. what they need is for all of us to go and patronize the businesses and support them. commissioner moore: congratulations to the planning department on october 26 at 3:00 p.m., the public advisory committee will give a demonstration on the new permit projects and permit tracking system which will tie those departments closer together. this particular meeting will be held in room 2001, and i assume that the public will be interested in how this becomes a more effective tool for all of us. there are some people that might

want to see what that entails. for many years, we have been encouraging and supporting the department for the length that i have been sitting up here, a little more than five years. i am looking forward for a much clearer and streamlined operation that provides timely information and provides recourse and they are misunderstanding something like what we had earlier today. commissioner sugaya: last week, i had occasion to go by the market again. and since the last time this issue came before us, i think it has gone totally the other direction. i think they were at a modest before that they needed to comply with the originalc cu that was supposed to be for a market.

there is not one stick of grocery at that place at this moment whereas before, there was the pretense of being a market and they have shelving. now the places like a wine bar. the entire center space is nothing but tables and chairs. i think we need to take another look at this. also following the market, i walked down columbus and there is a parklet. i don't know how the enforcement works, but it is obvious that that park is just an extension of the restaurant. they're serving people, taking orders, what ever. i don't think that was the intent and i don't want them to turn into a mere extension of

private enterprise within the public realm. if that is going to continue to happen, we should start charging them rent. that is all i have at the moment. commissioner miguel: that is happening all over the city. it is very obvious. it is my understanding they are not allowed to take orders, not allowed to actually bring food to the table. it is happening all over the city. the academy of art is occupying 625, a historic building, i believe, a landmark. and i am not saying they shouldn't have, for public safety, but they have put safety lights on the exterior all around that building.

and putting changes to the exterior of the historic building, i presume, takes quite a bit of procedure. i question whether it has been followed in this case, and i would like someone to take a look at it. as to the earthquake safety, it reminded me that 70 years ago, and elementary school, we were given the can't cover drills. nothing has changed. commissioner antonini: i also have had meetings in the last week or two with the project sponsor on today's calendar and with both neighbors and representatives in regards to

concerns of a future project -- it will be coming back to us, i believe, and conversations of concerns with them. >> i would like to ask that this commission have a presentation by the department relative to where we encourage and support parklets. i assume it is part of a larger comprehensive planning department idea rather than what can potentially be of use or as the location will issue has concluded last week, putting it on california street on a project that for other reasons i did not support, it was not part of a comprehensive ideal.

i am interested to hear you speak to the larger ideas of how we believe parklets can help a street become more neighborly. we want to support them, and we are not. in addition to, if they become potentially the tool for mitigating other impacts, do we have a fund for money being collected so we can build them where we want them? are they only occur where somebody suggest they should be. i would very much like to hear a more comprehensive presentation by the department. >> commissioners, we can move forward with the director's report.

>> with respect to parklets, we can do that presentation. we allow people to take food and we encourage them to be near eating and drinking establishments just because of the nature of what most of them, not all of them, are about. the agreement is that we should not be -- we can take them from across the way or another location. i realize that there are some concerns about some of them in the way they are operating. the other thing i wanted to call attention to the commission is that the commission has had several questions about the approval process for america's cup. into de's packet, there is a memo to you outlining all of that. and i'd be helpful